In Blatz v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 274 A.D.2d 491 (2nd Dept., 2000), the Court affirmed the application of a New Jersey statute of repose which barred actions based on unsafe conditions of improvements to real property more than ten years after construction or the finishing of improvements. In doing so, the court determined that the statute was substantive and, after the choice of law analysis, determined that the New Jersey statute was applicable. Therefore, in deciding whether to apply a foreign statute of repose, the court should not automatically apply CPLR 202; a conflict of law analysis must be performed.